4.2 Local community living adjacent to HiP
4.2.6 The Community and the Natural Environment
103
Table 4. 28: Respondents’ views on their input into developing facilities
Input in facility development Frequency (n=130) Percentage (100)
Person power 9 6.9
Security 20 15.4
Craft products 9 6.9
Provide site 3 2.3
Financial assistance 3 2.3
Maintain the facilities 38 29.2
Serve as worker 17 13.1
Promotion of Zulu culture and tradition 9 6.9
Any form of assistance 14 10.8
Don’t know 3 2.3
No response 5 3.9
104
Table 4. 29: Types of resources within the HiP that impact on the lives of respondents from the Nompondo community
Resources Frequency (n=130) Percentage (100)
Community levy trust fund 20 15.4
Thatching grass 52 40
Water 7 5.4
Firewood 33 25.4
Animal by-products 4 3.8
Meat donation for ceremonies 1 0.8
None 13 10
Table 4.29 indicate that 15.4% of the respondents from the Nompondo community are benefiting through the community levy trust fund. This was further supported by the Community Conservation Manager. Communities adjacent to HiP benefit from income generated by the Park through a community levy paid by visitors. These funds are administered through the Community Trust Fund and provided to communities for development needs as prescribed by EKZNW Board Policies. Through this fund EKZNW authority has been able to build the Nselweni Bush Lodge for 10 traditional authorities that border the HiP. Furthermore, a 4x4 game viewing vehicle was purchased through the profit that is generated by this lodge that is 100% owned by communities that borders the HiP including the Nompondo community under the Mdletshe Tribal Authority.
The majority of the respondents (40%) from the Nompondo community mentioned that they harvest thatching grass from HiP (Table 4.29). This was similar to what Rinzin et al. (2009) identified in Nepal where the Park officials allow the neighbouring local communities to collect grass for house construction and thatching from the Royal Chitwan National Park once a year. Nzama (2009) learnt from the Khula and Dukuduku communities that the local people harvest grass, reeds and thatch from ISimangaliso Wetland Park in KwaZulu-Natal. In fact, all the homes that the researcher visited had at least one traditional item made from grass materials. This proves that there is a large demand for the grass materials, especially thatching grass and reeds which have to be replaced periodically. Grass is also in high demand for handicraft work, which was cited as an important source of income for most of the female respondents. In fact, the majority of the female respondents were busy working on their handicraft products when approached to be interviewed. However, one major complaint from the respondents was that the grass is not completely free. This was based on the fact that for every four bundles of grass cut one belongs to the Park and it is used to roof some of the
105
accommodation facilities within the Park. Personal communications with the Conservator revealed the same. The Conservator, however, explained that this kind of arrangement was put in place in order to promote sustainable utilisation of the resources. Apparently, some community members perceive the concept of sustainable utilisation negatively. For instance, discussions with a few respondents revealed that some of the people from the neighbouring communities still hold the old belief that EKZNW the government or simply the "white person" wants the grass for herself/himself or her/his animals. Therefore, the idea that the natural resources in the Park are limited is viewed with a certain degree of scepticism though not complete rejection.
Only 5.4% of the respondents indicated that they have access to water in HiP (Table 4.29), which they either utilise while on duty in HiP or fetch in containers with varying capacities to take home. The rest of the respondents claimed that most of the community members have access to either clean tap water or water from the rivers. The clean tap water is provided free of charge through the Water Project Scheme, which was facilitated by HiP management. In fact the researcher observed a fair distribution of water taps within the community. The low response indicates that access to water as a resource has not been denied but instead the community members have other easy alternatives of obtaining water and so they do not have to depend on water in the HiP.
The results show that while 25.4% of the respondents obtain firewood from HiP (Table 4.29), the rest either get firewood from trees in the surrounding communal land/own plots or in addition use other sources of fuel like gas, paraffin, charcoal and electricity. However, 5.4%
respondents who reside 11-15 km from the HiP complained that they are unable to access firewood from HiP and they attributed this to the very long distances they have to travel in order to collect firewood from HiP (Table 4.11). This is an indication that they have not been denied access to firewood in HiP but the limiting factor is the long distances they have to cover in order to obtain the firewood.
Results show that only 3.8% of the respondents admitted that they obtain animal by-products from the Park (Table 4.29). The low response was due to the fact that most of the respondents are more interested in meat than the animal by-products. In fact, the researcher learnt from most respondents that it is the traditional healers and their helpers who mainly collect the by- products such as hides and skins for healing purposes.
106
One respondent indicated that through the tribal leaders they receive donations of meat from the Park when they are having ceremonies (Table 4.29). However, during informal discussions, some of the respondents claimed that the donations are mainly given to the tribal leaders. The Regional Community Conservation Co-ordinator attributed this complaint to the fact that there are instances where nepotism (the donations go to relatives of the tribal leaders) occurs and as a result some people end up claiming that they have been denied access. It will not be fair to blame HiP management for this unfair practice and so the tribal leaders have to set up a fair system for the distribution of the donations.
Table 4. 30: Respondents’ views with regards to accessing resources in the HiP:
(Multiple responses)
Conditions under which access is granted Frequency (n=130) Percentage (100)
Access under professional field ranger 30 23.1
Allowed only in a certain period of time 13 10
Apply for permission 4 3.1
Only allowed during winter 1 0.8
Only get firewood in winter 5 3.8
Limited access due to park ecology 2 1.5
Park manager must grant permission 75 57.7
Table 4.30 illustrates the conditions under which the respondents from the Nompondo community are allowed to access natural resources in the HiP. The majority of the respondents (57.7%) indicated that they must first apply for permission to access the natural resources from the HiP manager. Twenty three percent indicated that access to natural resources must be under the supervision of a trained field ranger. Furthermore, 10% indicated that they should be only allowed to access natural resources at certain times of the year.
These results indicate a clear restriction of community members to access natural resources from HiP. For rural communities residing adjacent to protected areas, the natural environment is a source of livelihood in terms of providing subsistence at a household level; it also forms the spiritual and cultural context.
107
Table 4. 31: Respondent’s perceptions as to whether tourists have contributed to negative environmental impacts
Perception on natural environment Frequency (n=130) Percentage (100) Plant and tree destruction
Yes 30 23.1
No 100 76.9
Water pollution
Yes 1 0.8
No 129 99.2
Air pollution Yes
No 130 100
Vandalism of artifacts Yes
No 130 100
Animal depletion Yes
No 130 100
Don’t know
Yes 130 100
No
The overwhelming majority of the respondents from the Nompondo community perceive that tourism activities did not cause any destruction to the plants and trees (76.9%), water pollution (99%), air pollution (100%), animal depletion (100%) or the vandalism of artefacts (100%) in HiP (Table 4.31). With domestic and international tourism rapidly increasing in the country it is important that legislation curtails the impact of tourism on the environment.
In this study the majority of the respondents indicated that they do not feel that visitors have contributed to negative environmental impacts which are an indication that the natural environment is well managed. However, it is of outmost importance that HiP management mobilise community support since the current benefits derived directly for communities from ecotourism in the area are limited. As the literature indicate that when communities do not see any benefits from protected areas particularly in ecotourism they are most likely to undermine conservation efforts.
4.2.7 Suggestions from the Nompondo Community with Regard to Ecotourism